Im in yr tweet, saving u from yr beerz

November 15, 2009

Oh good, the Marsden Fund have awarded $864k to someone to ‘research’ Facebook, Twitter and the like looking for teens boasting about having fun getting boozed. Unlike other useless research projects that simply get ignored once the cash has been spent – this one is likely to be used to justify taking more taxpayers money for social engineering advertisements aimed at teens like those we’ve seen with tobacco – no doubt with a social networking slant – ‘Geoffrey Palmer has sent you a shandy – it’s cool to drink watered down beer!’

I’m not against social pressure being exerted on drunken idiots but I’ll be damned if they start treating my beloved beer like tobacco! And here’s a newsflash for the Healthists – teens actually do not want you on Facebook and Twitter finger-wagging and ruining their fun! While I dislike the big brewers because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on advertising while making shite beer, I pretty much believe teens are going to drink exactly how much they want to anyway – it just may be that they drink more of brand x than brand y. So while I ignore the big brewers, I’ll soon get to spend my tax saving ‘vulnerable’ younger New Zealanders who obviously can’t think for themselves.

David Farrar @ Kiwiblog covers the drinking age once again being falsely touted as a silver bullet.

Stuff.co.nz covers the argy bargy between Supermarkets and the Law Commission over the release of alcohol sales data (in order to investigate minimum alcohol pricing). I hold the big two supermarket chains in NZ in similar regard to the big brewers but the correct response in this situation is indeed to tell the Law Commission to suck eggs.

I don’t want government intervention to interfere with my responsible drinking (http://beermatt.com/2009/11/13/somebody-slap-that-bitch-please/) but alcohol does have a potential for harm and care must be exercised in its sale and use. While my libertarian nature wants no regulations because I am respponsible,the sad truth is that like many philosphies, it doesn’t take into account human nature or corporate obligation. Being liberal carries with it some obligation towards restraint, otherwise governmentlimits will naturally be imposed. The companies that generate profits from the making and sale of alcohol have generally exhibited a reluctance to show restraint in their products or pricing and are making it a target.

It depends whether we’re talking about libertarianism or liberalism. Libertarianism most certainly does take human nature into account. It relies on government enforcement of objective law, and property rights to maintain civil behaviour. But that’s an argument for another blog. 😉

I still maintain that regulation does not and CAN not fix any social problem. At best, it could moderate a symptom, but there’s always the law of unintended consequences to worry about. So … another answer is required.

I guess I just don’t see any value in moderating my opinion on this. As usual, the government will do a) what is politically expedient, and b) whatever will mollify the media-generated frenzy of the masses over alcohol use/abuse. Guess who’ll get screwed in the process? I might as well not bother attempting to be diplomatic on this issue, since the only reasonable government action is to do nothing, and that’s just not going to happen in this political climate.

Bah, I’m having a grumpy day. Maybe I should go and abuse some alcohol to make myself feel better. 😉